Why Pay for a Retirement Home When It’s Cheaper to be Committed to an Insane Asylum?

As nearly everyone knows by now, the internet is the greatest danger to sanity yet devised by that mischievous and often self-defeating ape, Homo sapiens.

Case in point: There are now estimated to be well over 100 million bloggers in the world. A number that by itself, and without any need of further evidence, provides absolute proof a sizable chunk of humanity has, since the invention of the internet, gone grass-eating crazy.

Yet, strange as this must sound to you, blogging actually might not be the very worse the internet has done to undermine sanity. For the internet has also made it possible to find — at any minute of any hour, and at any hour of the day or night — someone, somewhere who has just said something that is certain to drive you insane. Possible? The net has made it all but inevitable.

The obvious example of that would be when someone publishes a statement they claim to be absolutely true, and which you know to be absolutely false, but which — and this seems to be the key here — the statement is so fundamentally flawed that you realize even in advance it will require you working something like a total of eleven hours in your spare time over three days, while skipping at least four meals, and posting in excess of 24,000 words, to correct. But correct it you will.

That is, you can be sure someone — and possibly an entire army of someones — will at least try to correct it.

The fact that so many of us humans can so easily get drawn into nearly endless internet kerfuffling would suggest to any sane person — assuming there still exists a sane person — that the world will end, not with a bang, but on that day a zillion face-palming smilies are tragically posted at once, thus totally depleting the world’s vital supply of pixels, and crashing the net once and for all. The net, after all, is the world these days.

Now, I myself thought I was above such foolish kerfuffling. I imagined my tendency to quickly get bored with debates protected me. I thought, “You are too wise to be drawn into posting more than three or five times.” Of course, all that false pride ended a couple days ago.

A couple days ago, I ran across fourteen words. A mere fourteen words! Fourteen (14) lousy words. But they have been my doom.

What exasperates me about the situation is I really have no quarrel at all with the fourteen words. None. I figure they are, if taken lightly, true enough. Every day I run across at least 100 far more ridiculous statements than the statement in question. And, at least a third of that time, they’re my own statements. Nevertheless, I have to date filled several notebook pages with painfully belabored handwritten commentary on those words. And I might fill several more.

I just might.

I’m dangerous like that.

What are the words?

[S]cience, which goes where the evidence and analysis indicate, and [which] is anti-mythical in nature…. [brackets mine].

I fully realize that I have just lost whatever respect and affection you once had for me. In the column to the right of this post, you will find a blogroll. In that blogroll, you will find a number of bloggers who are far more sane than me. I urge you to click on anyone of them — now! At once! I myself am done for. I’m finished. Kaput. Crazy as a one-legged jaywalker crossing the Chicago Eisenhower Expressway during rush hour. But you might, if you act in time, still save yourself.

If on the other hand — if you are my brother-or-sister-in-crazy, if you are already beyond redemption, if “hope” is a meaningless concept to you, if sanity is something even an American Congressperson possesses in comparison to you — then I embrace you, my friend! My brother! My sister! Let us go laughing over the fields of the moon together!

So, what does the statement, “Science, which goes where the evidence and analysis indicate, and which is anti-mythical in nature…”, what does that mean to you?

The very first thing that struck me about that statement was — that it is passably true. That it’s true enough. And a sane man might have left it at that.

Have I mentioned that I’m not sane? Not even close. So, the next thing that occurred to me was science might in the end go where the evidence and analysis indicates, but it often enough goes kicking and screaming. That is, the statement implies — at least to me — a far less rocky journey for new scientific ideas than is often the case.

I agree with those people who point out that scientists, on the whole, are to be counted among the world’s foremost skeptics. As a group, they tend not to accept new ideas until those ideas are supported by a weight of evidence and analysis. Sometimes that weight of evidence and analysis must be so great, before a theory is widely accepted, that it has become a juggernaut. A new idea can be given a pretty hard time of it.

Moreover, I don’t accept the notion scientists are always and ever rational. I recall Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argues that scientists at times tend to resist radically new ideas in their fields almost to the point of fanaticism. Especially the old guard. They can — and sometimes do — resist a new theory with such stubbornness that they go to their death beds unconverted. In which cases, it has only been after the old guard has died off that the new theory passes from controversial to widely accepted. So, I think it might be a myth that scientists always go happily down whichever roads are the most substantially paved with evidence and analysis.

Now, again, I don’t have a profound dispute with the statement, “science goes where evidence and analysis indicates.” I think the statement is a gloss. But I mostly agree with it. Of course only a stark raving lunatic such as myself would argue with a statement that he agrees with. Yessum. I sure do like this lunar landscape. And you still might have time to flee to that blogroll if you act at once.

It happens I have a about a half dozen other quibbles with the statement, “Science, which goes where the evidence and analysis indicates, and which is anti-mythical in nature…”. But this is getting to be a long blog post, so I will offer only one of those quibbles to you. Very briefly put: Scientists have often begun by accepting one or another popular myth of their day — and they have then only rejected that myth after first affirming it — sometimes affirming it for as long as several generations. But if that’s the case, can science be properly called “anti-mythical”?

Naturally, I think it’s passably true to characterize science as “anti-mythical”. I mean, I’m crazy. Thus, I am all but obligated to object to it. After all, I agree with it.

It all is becoming clearer and clearer to me. Clearer and clearer.

So! Five sets of questions for you. Pick a set, any set, and run with it:

Have you ever gotten into an internet kerfuffle that you later regretted having gotten involved in? And if so, what was it that made you regret your involvement?

What’s the craziest online argument you’ve ever gotten into in your life on the net? Were you, by any chance, arguing with yourself? And, if so, will you marry me?

When, if ever, is there any worthwhile purpose to getting profoundly involved in an internet debate? And what is that purpose?

Who is the craziest blogger on the net that you’ve yet to come across — but crazy in a good way? Where do they blog? Link, please! We wants their link!

Please quote the single craziest statement anyone has ever posted to the net. Ever.

Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Why Pay for a Retirement Home When It’s Cheaper to be Committed to an Insane Asylum?”

Great post Paul! It is true that scientists can sometimes become as stubborn to new ideas as a fundamentalist on a preaching spree 😀

The craziest argument i was in was with another gentlemen who made many absurd claims and disregarded all my refutations as false continually until he felt that he gave us (the other members of the debate) a real good thrashing. It was like a train on fire; horrifying but i couldn’t stop watching 😀

Paul, science is for pussycats. Everyone knows that the world is flat, made of cheese and runs on myth and legend. As for the best internet arguments, have a conversation with an academic poet about what constitutes a haiku. Enough fun to run a science laboratory. Hope you are having a good break 🙂

Well you’ve solved my future problem for me. I’ve been worrying about how I’d ever afford a retirement home but now thanks to you Paul I no longer have to worry about it. I’ll just check myself into the asylum when I’m ready. Bless you and you’re amazing! LOL 🙂

Have you ever gotten into an internet kerfuffle that you later regretted having gotten involved in? And if so, what was it that made you regret your involvement? – I sometimes wish I never connected at all, then realise it was something that added some value to my life. I am a contradiction to myself I guess, I want the connection, the kerfuffle, the debate and then I want to go back to who I was before and not be involved at all. My regret is never knowing where to draw the line. Allowing myself to feel and then being overwhelmed by the feelings. Make any sense? If it does let me know!

yes I think so too and you are a wise man to say so. we are after all not carved in stone, we have feelings that can change in split seconds it seems sometimes, but sadly we don’t know who we hurt when we do that.

Welcome, Guest, to Café Philos

Café Philos is a venture of Paul Sunstone. Paul discusses a large variety of subjects involving living, philosophy, religion, the arts and sciences, and welcomes your comments and emails. Drop by with your favorite beverage and join the conversation!